If the committee is corrupted in favor of Alabama, why would the members from each of the other conferences on the committee go along with it? Why didn't they put Alabama in last year?

I know we live in a world where everyone assumes everyone else is corrupt and there is a conspiracy behind everything we see. I'd like to believe most people are honorable and make decisions based on what they feel is right. 

5 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

If the committee is corrupted in favor of Alabama, why would the members from each of the other conferences on the committee go along with it? Why didn't they put Alabama in last year?

I know we live in a world where everyone assumes everyone else is corrupt and there is a conspiracy behind everything we see. I'd like to believe most people are honorable and make decisions based on what they feel is right. 

When people serve more than one master you have to wonder if anyone gets the whole truth.  

This is a good conspiracy theory! 

I am not going to lose any sleep over it but again expand the playoffs, we should never have to leave Bama, ND or Miami out in a case like this. 

38 minutes ago, HJ88 said:

 

Get rid of the title games. 

I think these Championship games are elimination playoff games. Duke beating UVA was an elimination for the ACC. UGA beating Bama was an elimination game for Bama. BYU was eliminated today by TT, the only ones who really had nothing to lose was IU and OSU. They were in regards, and with it being a close game, both teams will get a first round bye!

5 minutes ago, theguru said:

But what was that, two or four teams?  Of course everyone is going to hate that.

They hated it because human polls were involved and things like Sagarin and other computer models, which varied so wildly that the highest and lowest had to be discarded each week.

If people couldn't agree on two or four, they sure aren't going to like it for 16.

Just now, Jumper_Dad said:

They hated it because human polls were involved and things like Sagarin and other computer models, which varied so wildly that the highest and lowest had to be discarded each week.

If people couldn't agree on two or four, they sure aren't going to like it for 16.

When the playoffs were expanded to four, #4 won, right?  All I am saying is it is much easier to sort things out in the 14 to 18 range than it is in the 1 to 3 range and people won't scream as loud because the teams are much lesser in the 14 to 18 range. 

2 minutes ago, theguru said:

When the playoffs were expanded to four, #4 won, right?  All I am saying is it is much easier to sort things out in the 14 to 18 range than it is in the 1 to 3 range and people won't scream as loud because the teams are much lesser in the 14 to 18 range. 

THEGURU You know people are going to scream when it's their team on the outside looking in. Just like Miami is going to be screaming tomorrow when they are on the outside looking in. 

14 minutes ago, Big East Zebra said:

THEGURU You know people are going to scream when it's their team on the outside looking in. Just like Miami is going to be screaming tomorrow when they are on the outside looking in. 

For sure but look at this again, it is in the opening post of the thread.  People are going to scream a lot louder about teams in the top row or second row getting left out than they are about teams in the third and fourth rows, that is all I am saying.

12 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

? Everyone hated the old BCS computer rankings.

Everyone hated it, when it was to select only two teams.

8 minutes ago, futurecoach said:

Everyone hated it, when it was to select only two teams.

If they were bogus for two or four teams, what makes us think adding more teams would be any more accurate?

3 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

If they were bogus for two or four teams, what makes us think adding more teams would be any more accurate?

The BCS was only ever used for 2 teams. That is why it was considered bogus, as it was never fair deciding a championship and having either computers or people decide it. 
 

In today’s playoff world. The one thing the BCS would do, is at least give you true rankings each week. The way this went down with how messy the process was and explanations just a joke. 
 

First moving Bama up when they played bad in a win against Auburn, which as I have mentioned all week on here. Was essentially done to protect them. Then giving an explanation that well Bama didn’t move back after Georgia dominated the game, because they didn’t want to punish them, makes no sense. When you literally did that to BYU, and moved them back for losing their championship game. 
 

So consistency even in rationales by the committee. Which if the head to head mattered, Miami should have been over Notre Dame all along. Which then gets back to the committee argument. They said well it wasn’t until Miami and Notre Dame were next to each other in the rankings, that we looked at the head to head. Well they aren’t next to each other, if they don’t punish BYU for losing, like they didn’t punish Bama. 
 

Which let’s get to why they punished BYU and not Bama. When Virginia got upset by Duke in the ACC title game. It put the ACC in a spot where they would have not had a team in the playoff. Since Duke wouldn’t be ranked high enough to get that automatic bid. So it was either punish BYU and move them back, so they could have Miami next to Notre Dame. Or have the ACC not have a playoff team, and the committee would have not wanted to deal with that mess of a P5 conference not having a team in it. 
 

This whole process this year showed having a commiteee of humans, especially guys with skin in the game as active AD’s. That they will allow agendas, and things dictate rankings. 

6 minutes ago, futurecoach said:

This whole process this year showed having a commiteee of humans, especially guys with skin in the game as active AD’s. That they will allow agendas, and things dictate rankings. 

About half are current AD's and no conference has more than one. The rest are former Coaches, Players, Administrators and a media member. Who would you put on the committee? Or, would you go with straight computer rankings, like the two that currently think Notre Dame is #3 and USC is top 12.

I think the CFP rankings come out too early, I'd prefer just to get them the last 3 maybe 4 weeks at most.

I'd make the committee larger with one AD, one former coach and one former player from each conference involved in CFP. Conferences would send each representative for a four year stay on the committee. Every meeting would be documented Hard Knocks style and be released as soon as the brackets come out. They should have and use polls, power ratings and any other metric available to make their decisions. 

Adding transparency is the best thing that could happen to the CFP, plus ESPN, HBO, or someone would pay handsomely for that series.

8 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

About half are current AD's and no conference has more than one. The rest are former Coaches, Players, Administrators and a media member. Who would you put on the committee? Or, would you go with straight computer rankings, like the two that currently think Notre Dame is #3 and USC is top 12.

I think the CFP rankings come out too early, I'd prefer just to get them the last 3 maybe 4 weeks at most.

I'd make the committee larger with one AD, one former coach and one former player from each conference involved in CFP. Conferences would send each representative for a four year stay on the committee. Every meeting would be documented Hard Knocks style and be released as soon as the brackets come out. They should have and use polls, power ratings and any other metric available to make their decisions. 

Adding transparency is the best thing that could happen to the CFP, plus ESPN, HBO, or someone would pay handsomely for that series.

Quite honestly no current ones should be on there at all. As agendas and stuff definitely played out with this. As I said zero reason Bama should have jumped Notre Dame with their poor performance against a bad Auburn team, rivalry game or not. Then zero reason why BYU gets moved down a spot for losing, but not Bama. When both lost to top 4 teams pretty badly. Either both move down a spot, or neither. 
 

I agree that they do the rankings to early. Quite honestly they just shouldn’t do it at all, until the final reveal. As they have shown zero consistency in how they decide things. 
 

The sad part is, I do believe they look at computer rankings too. As I think they probably looked at the old BCS too and how it would have ranked them. As their final rankings ended up been similar. Which keep in mind the old BCS wasn’t just computers. The old human coaches polls also was in the calculations. So it wasn’t just computers. For reference here is how the old BCS rankings would have had the final rankings.
 

 

Just now, futurecoach said:

Quite honestly no current ones should be on there at all. As agendas and stuff definitely played out with this. As I said zero reason Bama should have jumped Notre Dame with their poor performance against a bad Auburn team, rivalry game or not. Then zero reason why BYU gets moved down a spot for losing, but not Bama. When both lost to top 4 teams pretty badly. Either both move down a spot, or neither. 
 

I agree that they do the rankings to early. Quite honestly they just shouldn’t do it at all, until the final reveal. As they have shown zero consistency in how they decide things. 
 

The sad part is, I do believe they look at computer rankings too. As I think they probably looked at the old BCS too and how it would have ranked them. As their final rankings ended up been similar. Which keep in mind the old BCS wasn’t just computers. The old human coaches polls also was in the calculations. So it wasn’t just computers. For reference here is how the old BCS rankings would have had the final rankings.
 

 

Which to add Notre Dame was also ahead of Bama in the old BCS rankings after last week too. That whole random switch was done for a reason last week. It was to protect Bama from falling out with a loss. Also to allow the ACC to get a team in either Virginia winning, or if they lost setting it up to where Miami could move up enough to where head to head mattered. As zero chance the committee wasn’t going to have the ACC not in the playoffs.  Which would have happened, if Bama didn’t jump Notre Dame last week. Humans controlling this, allows manipulation on things like that. 

I fully believe ND would beat Alabama this year. ND did themselves zero favors by losing close games to Miami and A and M, followed up by a weaker schedule.